JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by issuing a writ of certiorari and the impugned Order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Revision Petition No. 505/2024 filed under section 118 (3-C) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act passed by Ld. Financial Commissioner (Appeals),  Shimla,  H.P.  whereby  the  order  dated 20.05.2024 in a miscellaneous application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been affirmed, may kindly be to set-aside and the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act by the present respondent may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that against an order passed by District Collector, Solan, in Case No. 17/13 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shivalik Bimetal Controls Limited, the State preferred an Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. The Appeal was preferred under Section 64 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1972 Act’). Learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in terms of order dated 20.05.2024, Annexure P-5, allowed the Appeal and condoned the delay in filing the Appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals). In terms of impugned order dated 23.10.2024, learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the said Revision Petition by returning the following findings:- “3. I have considered the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the revision petition as well as the record attached therewith, including impugned order. From the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner, it is clear that the Ld. Commissioner has condoned the delay after hearing the parties. The Ld. Commissioner has observed that the matter remained under examination at various departmental channels right from the level of Collector to the Addition Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of H.P. and also with the advisory department at Government level. Further, the Ld. Commissioner, it is clear that the Ld. Commissioner has condoned the delay after hearing the parties. The Ld. Commissioner has observed that the matter remained under examination at various departmental channels right from the level of Collector to the Addition Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of H.P. and also with the advisory department at Government level. Further, the Ld. Commissioner has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8577 of 2014 titled as Executive Officer, Antiyur Town, Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam (D) by LRs wherein, while condoning the delay of 1373 days, it has been held that the court must always take a justice oriented approach, while considering an application for condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that, if, the court is convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situation and condone the delay. In the instant case, the Ld. Commissioner has accepted the application of the respondent after proper consideration of facts and law and passed a well reasoned and detailed order on 20.05.2024, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal on behalf of the respondent/State. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 20.05.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner in Miscellaneous Application filed by the respondent/State in Appeal No. 85/2023 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shivalik Bimetal Controls Ltd. and as such the same is hereby upheld. Accordingly, the present revision petition is not worth admission and as such, the same is dismissed in limine alongwith miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the orders under challenge. 5. The order that was passed by the Collector in the proceedings which were initiated against the present petitioners under Section 118 of the 1972 Act, is dated 14.12.2017. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the orders under challenge. 5. The order that was passed by the Collector in the proceedings which were initiated against the present petitioners under Section 118 of the 1972 Act, is dated 14.12.2017. Said order was challenged by the State along-with an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal and in terms of the application, copy whereof is on record as Annexure P-3, the delay in filing the Appeal was of more than 5 years and 2 months. The reasons mentioned in the application as to why the delay occurred in filing the Appeal are quoted hereinebelow:- “3. That delay, if any, has accrued in filing the appeal because of the reason that the impugned order was passed by Ld. District Collector on 14.12.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent approached the office of Collector Sub-Division Solan with the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2016-17 and showed the rapat No. 349 dated 12.07.2016. On receipt of the copy of letter from Sub-Divisional Officer (C) Solan vide letter No. SLN/SDM/CALA/2022 dated 16.06.2022, the applicant inquired regarding this case and it was noticed that the legal opinion in the above case has not been supplied by standing counsel for the State in case No 17/13 of 2016 decided on dated 14.12.2017 by the Ld. District Collector, Solan. The office of present appellant/applicant then enquired the matter and asked Sh. Vijay Kumar Sultanpuri, the then standing counsel for the State about the record and opinion in connection with above case vide letter No. LB/XIII-1/99-Part-III dated 29.06.2022, who has reported vide his letter dated nil received in the month of September to the office of present appellant/applicant that the opinion in the case could not have been supplied as the original record of the case file was with the office of District Revenue Officer, Solan. 4. That after receipt of legal opinion of the standing counsel in the month of September, the same alongwith record and order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the District Collector, Solan was sent to the office of the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of HP for its examination by the office of appellant/applicant vide letter No. LB/XIII-1/99-Part-III dated 13.09.2022. 4. That after receipt of legal opinion of the standing counsel in the month of September, the same alongwith record and order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the District Collector, Solan was sent to the office of the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of HP for its examination by the office of appellant/applicant vide letter No. LB/XIII-1/99-Part-III dated 13.09.2022. The A Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has examined the matter and conveyed the decision letter No. Rev.B.E.(2)-25/2022 dated 10.2022 received in the office of present appellant/applicant on 27.10.2022. In this process, the limitation period has expired. That the delay, if any, in filing the above appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but it occurred due to the reasons submitted in preceding paras, which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.” 6. Said application was contested by the present petitioner. Yet, in terms of order dated 20.05.2024, learned Divisional Commissioner allowed the application by holding that delay can be condoned if it is explained satisfactorily and as the matter remained under examination at various departmental channels right from the Collector to Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and also the Advisory Department at Government level i.e. Department of Law, therefore, delay in filing the Appeal was not deliberate. 7. The Revisional Authority upheld the said order by assigning the reasons that the Divisional Commissioner had observed that the matter remained under examination of various Departmental channels and thereafter, by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, referred to in the order, it observed that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, attempt on the part of Government Officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, should not come in the way of the condonation of delay and by assigning this reason the application was allowed. 8. This Court is of the considered view that the orders passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner as well as learned Financial Commissioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The delay of more than five years in filing the Appeal was not a small but was an inordinate delay. 8. This Court is of the considered view that the orders passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner as well as learned Financial Commissioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The delay of more than five years in filing the Appeal was not a small but was an inordinate delay. The reasoning given in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as to why the Appeal could not filed either within the period of limitation or within some reasonable period thereafter, is no reasoning in the eyes of law. What transpires within the Department though can be taken into consideration by the Court of law while condoning delay, but then if the delay is of more than 5 years, the same cannot be brushed aside, as has been done in this case by both the Authorities without any due application of judicial mind. The Authorities have erred in not appreciating that in the interregnum, certain rights stood accrued upon the other side which legitimately expected that as the Appeal was not filed either within the period of limitation or within some reasonable period thereafter, therefore, the matter had attained quietus. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and others Versus Living Media India Limited and Another, (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563, has been pleased to hold as under:- “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal  concession  has  to  be  adopted  to  advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal  concession  has  to  be  adopted  to  advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 10. While reiterating the said law, Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherula, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654, has observed that all its counselling to the Government and Government Authority has fallen on deaf ears, that the Court cannot be a place for the Government to walk in when they chose to, by ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed in the said judgment that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government Authorities because of their gross incompetence and till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed. Hon’ble Supreme Court also  observed  in  the  said  judgment  that  a  preposterous proposition sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go by. It held that if a case is good on merit, it will succeed in any case, but bar of limitation can even shut out good cases. 11. Accordingly, in light of observations made hereinabove and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, this petition is allowed and order dated 23.10.2024 passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revision Petition No. 505/24 and order dated 20.05.2024, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla in miscellaneous application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, are quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.